> that does not mean the professor's contribution to it was inffective To the particular student that doesn't get it, yes it was ineffective. In any given grou

> that does not mean the professor's contribution to it was inffective To the particular student that doesn't get it, yes it was ineffective. In any given group of students, that'll yield different percentages of effective communication, but it should be the teacher's duty to maximize his communication ratio. As such, the teacher as an 'effective' communicator is purely a function of how many effective communications he actually establishes. Like I said in my first post, it could be that the student isn't up on the prerequisite knowledge and communication could suffer because of that. The important thing to note here is that: 1) Teachers are usually the ones that trigger this chain of communication breakdown somewhere down the line in the student's career. 2) That effective communication is a verb, and stands on it's own outside of both the teacher and the student, but it should be the teacher's duty to maximize it as much as he can, because that's effectively what he was hired for, and if he doesn't, then other teachers that have his students later on will suffer because of it. > You seem to only check the professor for failure. How about failure of the receiving end to parse the information. Because of lazyness, entitlement, easy grades acquired in other classes, and sometimes even pure stupidity. There are plenty of things that could go wrong in the pipeline, and that's why it's impossible for a teacher to ever have a 100% communication success ratio. But let me say that 'laziness' and 'stupidity' are almost never gonna be the reasons a student fails. First of all, there is such a thing as 'general intelligence' [0], and it should be the teacher's (or management's) duty to account for it, because by definition, the student may not always be able to. Secondly, 'laziness' is actually the lack of motivation, and the lack of motivation as seen in students is usually a product of poor teaching. Not necessarily on behalf of the student's current teacher, but as an accumulation of bad qualities on all the teachers the student has had. And what could those bad qualities possibly be? You guessed it: bad communication. If a student feels he's not getting what you're saying, and then he goes on to find the same thing from another teacher, and then another, what on earth is he supposed to conclude other than that he's just stupid? If he's allowed to come to this conclusion, guess what he's gonna do... he'll become lazy. Because why bother trying in a system that you've already been trained to understand you won't be successful in? 'Laziness' as a concept almost never appears in isolation -- nobody is ever lazy "just because", it's just not human to be so. The fact that this is ever used as a legitimate reason for anything is quite indicative of the current state of society. Entitlement could be an issue, but at least in my experience, it's relatively rare for that to actually be a legitimate hindrance because it's usually a symptom of something else (see: 'laziness' above). > Only you had to use the "corrupt" qualifier for the data. Who said they are corrupt in the first place. Alright, I'll agree, but it was just an example. The flip-side of it would be that the data isn't corrupt on the sender's end, but that the server just hasn't been set up to understand the protocol yet. Same deal. Both are key components to effective communication, so if either one of them doesn't work, the action of 'communicating' isn't happening. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G_factor_(psychometrics)